Part 4: Chukei Chaim: Eruvin Rebuttal

Chukei Chaim: More Discussions about 600,000 People

600,000 on the Street or in the City?

17. Within the meikel opinion, that there must be 600,000 people for an area to be called a reshus horabim (above, 8), the poskim argue whether there must be 600,000 people traveling on a street to give it the status of a reshus horabim or whether the main streets that serve the public are considered reshus horabim even if the 600,000 people are spread throughout the city.

Rebuttal: The simple reading of the Shulchan Aruch is that the criterion of shishim ribo is conditional on the street. It is illogical to argue that the population of a city reflects the number of people who can make use of any street. Many people who live in one section of a city do not utilize the main streets in other sections of their city, so why should they be included in the tally of all the users of the city's main streets? As the Maharsham argued (3:188), if the criterion of shishim ribo includes even those who occasionally use the street, how do we apply limits on the amount of time needed to fulfill the criterion? To label a street as a reshus harabbim, the criterion of shishim ribo requires that there be 600,000 people traversing the street at least on some/many days of the year. Hence, there is almost no street, even in large cities, that would be classified as a reshus harabbim.

Chukei Chaim: 18. The Mechaber’s wording implies that a domain is only a reshus horabim if 600,000 people pass through that domain (שו''ע סי' שמ''ה ס''ז). Some use this in combination with another kula, e.g., when the gates of a city do not go all the way through the city, from gate to gate (שו''ת דברי מלכיאל ח''ד ס''ג).

Rebuttal: No, the criterion of mefulash u’mechuvanim mshaar l’shaar is not a kula. It is a fundament in reshus harabbim. Even Rav Aharon Kotler, who only applied the criterion in certain circumstances, admitted that it was the fundament that was relied on (Mishnas Rav Aharon, 6:2). The Divrei Malkiel does not make any such combination. The criterion of mefulash and shishim ribo are two distinct fundaments of a reshus harabbim, and they do not need to be combined to be utilized.

Chukei Chaim: 19. However, it is clear from many poskim that as long as a city has 600,000 people in it, the main roads are considered reshus horabim (רש''י עירובין דף נ''ט הובא בשער הציון סי' שמ''ה סקכ''כ, ריטב''א הובא בביאה''ל שם ד''ה שאין, שו''ת אחיעזר ח''ד סי' ח', חכמת שלמה סוף סי' שס''ג, תפארת ישראל הקדמה לשבת, שו''ת אגרות משה ח''א סי' קל''ט ענף ה).

Rebuttal: This is simply incorrect, and a misreading of the sources. None of the sources listed maintain that the criterion of shishim ribo is conditional on a city containing shishim ribo, whose main streets would then be labeled a reshus harabbim. Rashi maintains that when a city which contains shishim ribo has one main road that would need to be used to enter and exit the city, the road could be labeled as a reshus harabbim (Rashi, Eruvin 59b). However, if the street never has shishim ribo traversing it, it is definitely not classified as a reshus harabbim. The Shaar HaTziyun cited (actually it should be סקכ''ה) is clearly referring to shishim ribo traversing a mavoi hamefulash. Accordingly, the Shaar HaTziyun requires that shishim ribo actually traverse the street. The Ritva argues that all people who traverse a road, even those who are not part of the city’s population, should be included in the tally in order to determine if there is shishim ribo traversing therein. The Ritva’s shita is not predicated on the population of the city, only on the volume of pedestrians traversing the road itself. The Achiezer maintains that once one road has shishim ribo traversing therein, the roads of the city that open into it are classified as a reshus harabbim. The Chochmas Shlomo is referring to mechitzos biydai shomayim, which in order to be negated do not need shishim ribo traversing the mechitzos themselves, rather it would be sufficient if there is a reshus harrabim contained therein. The shishim ribo would of course need to be congregated on the street. No part of the city would be classified as a reshus harabbim, even if the city has a population of shishim ribo, unless there is a street that has shishim ribo traversing it (see his Sefer HaChaim, siman 345:7, and Eitz HaChaim, siman 273). Rav Moshe maintains that the criterion of shishim ribo is conditional on an area of 12 mil by 12 mil, which contains a population of three million people. There is no one on this list who upholds that the main roads of a city which contains shishim ribo are classified as a reshus harabbim.   

Chukei Chaim: 20. Residential streets. It is likely that only the main roads used for transportation by the 600,000 people are included in the areas factored into the count of 600,000. However, residential streets that primarily serve that neighborhood’s residents but not the majority of the city’s populace are not considered reshus horabim d’oraisa even according to the machmir opinion (הגר''נ קרליץ). [Nowadays that everyone uses navigation devices, e.g. Waze, which often direct cars into neighborhoods when the main routes are congested – something that did not used to be the case – it must be considered whether even residential streets, at least those that reach the reshus horabim at both ends, are treated as the reshus horabim since they also serve the general public.]

Rebuttal: Rav Nissim Karelitz is the only posek who maintains that the main roads of a city containing a population of shishim ribo are classified as a reshus harabbim. The fact that Rav Bleier would suggest that because of Waze we should possibly classify residential streets as a reshus harabbim demonstrates the absurdity we have reached when it comes to the issue of eruvin. The fact is Rav Karelitz’s shita is a chiddush and is in opposition to the minhag to erect eruvin even in cities containing a population of shishim ribo (Warsaw, Lodz). To extrapolate further, by creating more scenarios to be stringent, is absurd.   

Chukei Chaim: 21. People in houses do not count. Even if we say it is 600,000 people in the city and not necessarily on any given street, there must be 600,000 people on the streets; people in houses are not counted. They estimate that a city with a population of close to 3 million likely has 600,000 people on the streets at a time, in which case it becomes a reshus horabim (אג''מ או''ח ח''ה סי' כ''ח אות ה).

Rebuttal: Rav Moshe argued that the minhag was to establish eruvin in cities whose population was greater than shishim ribo. This is in direct opposition to Rav Karelitz’s shita, which included in the tally even those who were in their homes. To include those people who were in their homes, a reshus hayachid, in the tally, is beyond comprehension.  

 

Chukei Chaim: 600,000 Including People from Outside

22. The poskim discuss what the halacha is when a city itself does not have 600,000 residents, but people come from outside the city. Do those people count as part of the 600,000?

23. Some say visitors count as part of the 600,000 (ריטב''א עירובין דף נ''ט הובא בביאה''ל סי' שמ''ה ד''ה שאין).

Rebuttal: However, the Ritva only reckons the street itself as a reshus harabbim, but not the entire city.

Chukei Chaim: 24. Others say that even if we count visitors, it is likely that only streets used by visitors are considered reshuyos horabim d’oraisa, not streets they don’t use (ספק בס' בינת שמחה תיקון עירובין סי' ו', חכמת הלב עמק החכמה סי' ו' אות ג' בשם פוסקי זמנינו).

Rebuttal: Nothing cited from these seforim is to be believed, as they were written by members of the Chevrah Hilchos Issurei Eruvin. There is no doubt that only the roads that are traversed by shishim ribo are classified as a reshus harabbim, and even those who do not reside in the city are included in the tally [besides some poskim who maintain that once the main street of a city contains shishim ribo traversing therein, the streets opening into it can also be classified as a reshus harabbim, even if they do not contain shishim ribo].

Chukei Chaim: Counting People in Vehicles

25. The poskim discuss whether people in vehicles count as part of the 600,000 or only pedestrians. Some want to be meikel and say people in vehicles do not count since there were only pedestrians in the encampment in the Midbar, and also because cars are enclosed by walls ten tefachim high and have an area of four by four tefachim, so a car is treated as a reshus hayachid (שו''ת משנה הלכות ח''ח סי' קמ''ד).

Rebuttal: In fact, most poskim maintain that the occupants of a vehicle are not tallied in the shishim ribo (Bais Ephraim, O.C. 26; Maharsham, 1:162; Yeshuos Malko, siman 26-27; Harei B’samim, 5:73; Bais Av, 2:9:3; Mahari Stief, siman 68; Satmar Rav, Kuntres Meoz U’Mekedem, p. 27; Divrei Yatziv, 2:172:13; V’yaan Yoseph, 1:155:1; Kuntres Tikkun Eruvin Manhattan, siman 12 p. 105; Kinyan Torah, 4:40:6, and Rabbi Eliezer Y. Waldenberg zt”l, author of the Tzitz Eliezer, as cited in The Contemporary Eruv, 2002 p. 54 note 119). The reason is either because a vehicle itself is considered a reshus hayachid and therefore its occupants are not incorporated in the count or because we only include pedestrians (holchei regel) who traverse the street in the tally.

It is important to note that the concept that only holchei regel create a reshus harabbim is already mentioned in the Rishonim (Or Zarua, Hilchos Erev Shabbos siman 4, and Rabbeinu Avraham ben HaRambam in Birchas Avraham, siman 15).

Chukei Chaim: 26. However, most poskim argue with this logic. They hold that people in cars also count as part of the 600,000 (פמ''ג סי' שס''ג א''א סק''ל, ערוך השלחן סי' שמ''ה סקכ''ו, אג''מ או''ח ח''א סי' קל''ט, ח''ה סי' כ''ח, הגר''א קוטלר, בעל ויואל משה הובא בס' יציאות השבת סי' ו', שו''ת שבט הלוי ח''ה סי' נ''ג).

Rebuttal: The source indicated for Rav Aharon Kotler and the Satmar Rebbe (Vayoel Moshe), is a member of the Chevrah Hilchos Issurei Eruvin and nothing cited from these seforim is to be believed. Case in point, this source claimed in 1981 that Rav Aharon maintained that the occupants of vehicles are included in the tally of shishim ribo. However, in 1985, when Rav Aharon’s sefer was first published, it disclosed that he did not accept the fundament of shishim ribo altogether. Hence, as Rav Aharon did not uphold the criterion of shishim ribo, it is unlikely that he would have expressed an opinion regarding how to apply the criterion. It is more likely that since this member did not know Rav Aharon’s opinion, he simply concocted that Rav Aharon maintained that we include the occupants of vehicles in the tally of shishim ribo. Furthermore, regarding the Vayoel Moshe, we know from other sources that the Satmar Rebbe maintained that we do not include the occupants of vehicles in the tally (Kuntres Meoz U’Mekedem, p. 27). The Pri Megadim is referring to mechitzos biydai shomayim, in which case he maintains that holchei regel are not required to negate the mechitzos. However, regarding a tzuras hapesach, he would require people actually traversing the tzuras hapesach to negate them. The Aruch HaShulchan, in 363:48, clearly maintains that we do not include the occupants of vehicles in the tally of shishim ribo (hence, what the Aruch HaShulchan writes in 345:26 needs to be expounded on). Therefore, we are only left with Rav Moshe, and the Shevet HaLevi who uphold that we do include the occupants of vehicles in the tally of shishim ribo.  However, as can be discerned from the list mentioned above, they are in the minority.